The Trump administration has set its sights on a bold move, delving into the possibility of taking federal control of the 9/11 memorial and museum in New York City. This idea, stirring debate among state leaders and site officials, touches on the sanctity of a place that holds deep meaning for countless Americans.
According to The Washington Times, the White House has confirmed “preliminary exploratory discussions” about this potential shift, though specifics remain scarce. The proposal stems from a promise made by President Trump during a campaign event on Long Island last year, signaling his intent to designate ground zero as a national monument.
Recalling his pledge, Trump declared, “I am announcing tonight that as president, I will officially make the ground zero site at the World Trade Center a national monument protected and maintained by the United States government, so that hallowed ground and the memory of those who perish there will be preserved for all time, preserved forever.” While the sentiment strikes a chord with those who value federal stewardship of historic sites, one has to wonder if this is the right path for a location so intimately tied to New York’s heart and history.
The site in lower Manhattan stands as a somber tribute, with two reflecting pools marking the footprints of the fallen World Trade Center towers. Bronze parapets surrounding these pools bear the engraved names of those lost, a quiet testament to the tragedy.
Beyond the pools, a museum opened in 2014 houses artifacts from the attacks, alongside photographs, personal items, and testimonies that keep the stories alive. It’s a space where grief and resilience intertwine, drawing visitors to reflect on a day that reshaped the nation.
Yet, whispers of discontent have lingered over the years, with some questioning the ticket prices and the nature of certain exhibits. These critiques, though, pale against the larger question of who should rightfully oversee such a deeply personal memorial.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, swiftly rebuffed the notion of federal control, pointing to recent cuts in funding for the World Trade Center Health Program. “The 9/11 Memorial belongs to New Yorkers — the families, survivors, and first responders who have carried this legacy for more than two decades and ensured we never forget,” she stated, jabbing at Trump to focus on supporting victims’ families instead of seizing control.
Her words carry weight, reflecting a protective stance over a site that many locals see as their own to guard. It’s hard to ignore the irony of a federal push for control while support for survivors seems to wane in other areas.
Beth Hillman, president and chief executive of the 9/11 Memorial and Museum, echoed this resistance, arguing that a takeover defies fiscal logic. “At a time when the federal government is working to cut costs, assuming the full operating expenses for the site makes no sense,” she said, questioning why Washington would burden itself with such a responsibility.
Hillman also highlighted the museum’s success under its current model, noting that exhibitions honor bravery and patriotism effectively. With 2024 filings showing nearly $69 million in program service revenue and total revenue of about $93 million, the organization appears financially sound without federal intervention.
A museum spokesman, speaking to the New York Times, added a legal dimension, stating there’s “nothing in existing law that would give the federal government the unilateral ability to take the site over.” This raises a practical barrier, suggesting any move toward control would face significant pushback in the courts.
The numbers and legalities paint a picture of an institution holding its own, raising the question of why fix something that isn’t broken. Federal overreach here could easily be seen as a misstep when local stewardship has carried the weight for over two decades.
As the 24th anniversary of the attacks approaches next week, no plans have been announced for Trump to visit the memorial, with his schedule pointing instead to a Pentagon ceremony and a later stop at a New York Yankees game. This absence from ground zero during such a poignant time might fuel further skepticism about the sincerity of federal intentions.
The debate over control of this sacred space isn’t just about jurisdiction; it’s about who gets to shape the narrative of remembrance. New Yorkers, having borne the brunt of that tragic day, deserve a leading voice over a site that embodies their loss and strength.
While the idea of national monument status might sound noble, the risk of politicizing a place of mourning is real, and the administration would do well to tread lightly. Honoring the memory of 9/11 means prioritizing the needs of survivors and families over any symbolic power grab, ensuring that hallowed ground remains a unifying force, not a battleground for agendas.
